# Judge rules no 1st Amendment right to film police **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2016, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174 "2016-02-26T05:37:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/21 "2016-02-26T16:18:58Z")
After reading the ruling, it is obviously correct. The first amendment guarantees five rights, religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition of government. Recording police is obviously not a religious undertaking, nor is it petitioning the government. It is not speech to film someone. The individuals were not prevented from assembling. I could maybe see a freedom of the press violation but the photos and videos were not destroyed and they could broadcast them after being released. The judges are correct this is a fourth amendment case and not a first amendment case. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/22 "2016-02-26T16:51:00Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > After reading the ruling, it is obviously correct. The first amendment guarantees five rights, religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition of government. Recording police is obviously not a religious undertaking, nor is it petitioning the government. It is not speech to film someone. The individuals were not prevented from assembling. I could maybe see a freedom of the press violation but the photos and videos were not destroyed and they could broadcast them after being released. > The judges are correct this is a fourth amendment case and not a first amendment case. The person was detained for filming - preventing assembly. He was detained in response to filming, retaliating against 1st amendment conduct, gathering information which is a necessary component before expression. In addition, filming police as we have seen in recent history has led to widespread citizen journalism, where the press is construed very broadly. I think you’re totally wrong on this. According to the judge - if the person in question told the cops to go fuck themselves he would have been expressing or criticizing police activity and therefore the conduct would have been protected. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/23 "2016-02-26T16:56:55Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > After reading the ruling, it is obviously correct. The First Circuit doesn’t think it’s so obvious. > [@](#): > > Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. > > … > > In a unanimous decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the officers violated Glik’s constitutional rights and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court ruled that the right to film public officials in public places was “clearly established”, and Glik’s actions did not violate state law. > **[Glik v. Cunniffe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe)** > > Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The case arose when Simon Glik filmed Boston, Massachusetts, police officers from the bicycle unit making an arrest in a public park. When the... ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/24 "2016-02-26T17:28:08Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Long live the ACLU. Thanks for this, I believe I’ll send them more money. I wish the need were nonexistent, but the ACLU and NORML are on my list of organizations I support financially. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/25 "2016-02-26T17:30:03Z")
“However, the court also ruled that the right to film public officials was subject to reasonable limitations with respect to the time, place and manner in which the recording was conducted.” In both the Miller and Geraci cases, there’s was an alleged interference of the police activity. The First Amendment is _not_ to be so broadly interpreted as to allow “… [having] folks push their arm past my face in an attempt to film the person I was arresting”. In the Miller case, the photograph was returned to the owner, no infringement of his rights. In the Geraci case, she is allow to proceed with her Fourth Amendment complaint of illegal search and seizure. Sounds like a robust decision to me. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/26 "2016-02-26T17:48:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know anything at all about this specific guy. But in general, my understanding is that a lot of judges get appointed to lower-profile positions who are not in ideological agreement with the president who appoints them. Generally due to political connections, e.g. as a favor to the home-state senator who sponsors them. It’s only at higher levels that you consistently get all this ideological vetting. No disagreement. Virtually every judge in this country is a political hack. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/27 "2016-02-26T19:04:07Z")
(Removed) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/28 "2016-02-26T19:16:24Z")
I agree that the First Amendment does not explicitly contain the right to film police. But neither does it contain the right to buy and possess ink. Still, if the state sought to suppress newspaper printing by requiring a license to buy and possess ink, and limited those licenses to publishers amenable to praising the government, it would implicate First Amendment guarantees. There’s a concept called “chilling effect,” where actions that enjoy First Amendment protection are stifled because of a vague or overly broad prohibition. These types of regulatory actions are also typically violative of the First Amendment, even when they don’t directly strike at one of the named First Amendment protections. In addition, I think that filming the police in public is itself expressive conduct, regardless of how loudly or softly the filmographer announces his intentions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/29 "2016-02-26T19:18:40Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > The First Circuit doesn’t think it’s so obvious. > [Glik v. Cunniffe - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe) Here, I am not sure you have a winning argument. How much of this decision rested on state law’s clearly establishing a right? It could well be that the fact that two different states are involved, with different laws, changes things. I am on a phone and can’t easily read the cases. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/30 "2016-02-26T19:54:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The person was detained for filming - preventing assembly. He was detained in response to filming, retaliating against 1st amendment conduct, gathering information which is a necessary component before expression. In addition, filming police as we have seen in recent history has led to widespread citizen journalism, where the press is construed very broadly. I think you’re totally wrong on this. > > According to the judge - if the person in question told the cops to go fuck themselves he would have been expressing or criticizing police activity and therefore the conduct would have been protected. How is filming assembly? Assembly means congregating in groups, filming means taking video. There are not the same thing at all. Freedom of the press means freedom to disperse information. Filming is gathering information. Telling a cops to f themselves is obviously speech, so it is covered under the first amendment. The first amendment covers five specific rights, filming is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/31 "2016-02-26T20:03:14Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > The First Circuit doesn’t think it’s so obvious. > [Glik v. Cunniffe - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe) Judges think alot of stupid things. It is obviously a breach of the fourth amendment since the people who were arrested did not violate any law and the wiretapping charge was clearly a pretext. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/32 "2016-02-26T20:28:15Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > How is filming assembly? Assembly means congregating in groups, filming means taking video. There are not the same thing at all. > Freedom of the press means freedom to disperse information. Filming is gathering information. > Telling a cops to f themselves is obviously speech, so it is covered under the first amendment. > The first amendment covers five specific rights, filming is not one of them. How is filming an activity that the police can stop? It is not in itself interfering with the police if done from a reasonable distance. The cop on the beat does not have the authority to assume any power that is not explicitly denied him by the constitution. If someone thinks it’s reasonable for the police to prevent filming their activities let them enact a law saying so that can be subject to actual review in the courts and by the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/33 "2016-02-26T20:43:27Z")
Kearney’s decision will get reversed, fortunately. In some ways, the ruling is a good thing. They were prepared to go to trial in March, with the potential for some confounding issues to have prevented a clean appeal. But this way, the Third Circuit will rule on the central issue–and sooner. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/34 "2016-02-26T21:40:01Z")
Hopefully this will get reversed. Knowing they are being filmed probably makes police a little more cognizant of an eventual review of their actions. That review is something society, unfortunately, needs. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/35 "2016-02-26T22:44:26Z")
Why? In the Miller case, the right to film, photograph or video is _clearly_ established … the police promptly gave the photo back to Miller … sight unseen. This decision only states that this right to film or photograph lies elsewhere, not under the narrow right of Free Speech. Get it, Miller is free to splash that photograph everyplace. In the Geraci case, the decision that sends this case to trial again _clearly_ establishes her right to film … otherwise there is no illegal seizure. But again, it’s not a Free Speech right, but some other right. There’s nothing here to stop us from filming or photographing except that such filming and photography should _interfere_ with the police activity… which makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/36 "2016-02-27T06:24:44Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > How is filming assembly? Assembly means congregating in groups, filming means taking video. There are not the same thing at all. He was detained while standing on the sidewalk - assembling. > [@](#): > > Freedom of the press means freedom to disperse information. Filming is gathering information. Gathering information is a necessary prerequisite before expressing or dispersing information. This was in the opinion. > [@](#): > > Telling a cops to f themselves is obviously speech, so it is covered under the first amendment. An encouraging development in the level of discourse between police and non-police. If you say nothing, you can be detained, but if you tell them to go fuck themselves then you are covered under the first amendment. > [@](#): > > The first amendment covers five specific rights, filming is not one of them. No. The first amendment covers more than these. You state the five rights are protected involve religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition of government. The first amendment [also protects association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution): > [@Wiki](#): > > Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958),[227][228] that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. Your statement about five rights is false. Filming may not be explicitly protected, but information gathering in the context of news reporting is. Quoting Volokh: > [@Volokh](#): > > Whether one is physically speaking (to challenge or criticize the police or to praise them or to say something else) is relevant to whether one is engaged in expression. But it’s not relevant to whether one is gathering information, and \*\*the First Amendment protects silent gathering of information \*\*(at least by recording in public) for possible future publication as much as it protects loud gathering of information. > > Your being able to spend money to express your views is protected even when you don’t say anything while writing the check (since your plan is to use the funds to support speech that takes place later). Your being able to associate with others for expressive purposes, for instance by signing a membership form or paying your membership dues, is protected even when you aren’t actually challenging or criticizing anyone while associating (since your plan is for your association to facilitate speech that takes place later). The same should be true of your recording events in public places. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/37 "2016-02-27T06:27:09Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > There’s nothing here to stop us from filming or photographing except that such filming and photography should _interfere_ with the police activity… which makes perfect sense. Except you know, being detained and having your filming equipment taken, even if briefly. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/38 "2016-02-27T07:26:13Z")
I would think the ruling is at odds on some level with FOIA. The spirit of that law is one of public transparency. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/39 "2016-02-27T15:32:22Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > After reading the ruling, it is obviously correct. The first amendment guarantees five rights, religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition of government. Recording police is obviously not a religious undertaking, nor is it petitioning the government. It is not speech to film someone. The individuals were not prevented from assembling. I could maybe see a freedom of the press violation but the photos and videos were not destroyed and they could broadcast them after being released. > The judges are correct this is a fourth amendment case and not a first amendment case. Recording police is step one of petitioning the government. It’s creating evidence that there is an actual grievance that needs to be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174/40 "2016-02-27T15:49:40Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Except you know, being detained and having your filming equipment taken, even if briefly. This is like the Geraci case where the Fourth Amendment complaint is going to trial, her case bears enough merit. THAT decision doesn’t need to be qualified, she may be found to be _entitled_ to her film without regard to what she plans to do with it. If she wins, she can use the film most anyway she wants to; decorate her X-mas tree, use stills in her newspaper, trade it for a gun, AND/OR use it as Free Speech. If I might use **Bricker** ’s example, we have the right to purchase ink. This right is _not_ qualified to require us to use it to print a newspaper. We have the right to film police. This right is _not_ qualified to require us to use the images in Free Speech. The judge used a very narrow lens when he addressed the Free Speech issue, essentially stating that neither were actually “speaking” at the time, so there was no speech to be abridged. Bottom line is when a police officer tells you to move along, you move along. If you think your rights were violated, you move along to the nearest ACLU office. If you tell the officer to fuck off and refuse to move along, then the ACLU will have to visit you in jail. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-rules-no-1st-amendment-right-to-film-police/747174.md?page=3)